BILL ANALYSIS Ó Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair AB 203 (Brownley) Hearing Date: 08/25/2011 Amended: 08/15/2011 Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-HernandezPolicy Vote: Education 7-3 _________________________________________________________________ ____ BILL SUMMARY: AB 203 specifies and expands requirements in several areas of Parent Empowerment Act (PEA) provisions, including content and signature requirements for petitions, petition review procedures, and meeting requirements. This bill would require the Department of Education (CDE), within 90 days after the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and State Board of Education (SBE) have received 75 PEA petitions, to submit a report to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature and the Governor, as specified. _________________________________________________________________ ____ Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund Signature verification Potentially significant reimbursable mandate General CDE administration Significant one-time costs; likely >$50 General _________________________________________________________________ ____ STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE. Existing law (SB 4x5, Romero, Fifth Extraordinary Session, Chapter 3, Statutes of 2010), established the PEA, which (among other provisions) authorizes a parent of a pupil enrolled in a school that is not identified as a "persistently lowest-achieving school," as determined under the federal Race to The Top program, but is subject to corrective action pursuant to the federal No Child Left Behind Act and has an Academic Performance Index score of less than 800, to submit an application requesting a school district governing board to implement specified education reform models. This is commonly referred to as the "Parent Trigger" for school reform. AB 203 (Brownley) Page 1 Since its enactment, parents, LEA governing boards, the CDE, and the SBE have struggled to implement the Parent Trigger due a lack of statutory clarity. In September 2010, the SBE began developing emergency regulations to address five key issues: (a) how the Parent Trigger interacts with the current charter school petition process; (b) signature requirements and verification process; (c) identification of eligible schools and notification of stakeholders; (d) notification timelines; and (e) allegations of threats and harassment. The SBE has recently sent draft permanent regulations out for public comment. Staff notes that the CDE was never appropriated funding to implement the PEA, or develop regulations. California did not receive Race to the Top funding, and the CDE has been absorbing all workload required to develop the regulations and implement other provisions of SB 4x5. This bill seeks to clarify the Parent Trigger process and requirements, in order to implement it in a way that avoids litigation and creates a common understanding of the requirements. However, to the extent that this bill requires district governing boards that receive these petitions to undertake a new activity or duty beyond what is explicitly required by the existing PEA, it will create a reimbursable state mandate on school districts. The provisions of this bill are similar to the SBE's draft regulations that are currently out for public comment. To the extent that the bill's provisions are consistent with proposed regulations, and if those draft regulations are adopted, the mandate would likely be caused by the regulations, as reimbursement of the costs associated with mandated activities would be required as a result of the regulations even in the absence of the bill. If the regulations are not adopted, or are less extensive than this bill, the bill uniquely creates a new mandate and its related costs. The most significant difference between this bill and the currently proposed SBE regulations is that this bill requires signature verification for Parent Trigger petitions. The proposed draft regulations authorize, but do not require, an LEA that receives a petition to verify the petition signatures (that they are authentic, that the child of the signer is enrolled in the school or a feeder school, etc.). The regulations specify how the signatures must be verified, if the LEA chooses to AB 203 (Brownley) Page 2 verify them as a determination of the petition's validity. This bill specifically requires that the LEA verify the signatures, and do so consistent with the requirements outlined in the bill. It is in the best interest of the LEA to verify the petition signatures, and most are likely to do so even in the absence of a statutory requirement. However, by requiring verification, this bill creates a reimbursable state mandate; the state would have to reimburse LEAs for activities and costs necessary to verify that the signatures meet the requirements. This bill requires the CDE to provide sample petitions on its website, translated into multiple languages. The department has indicated that it would have to contract for these translations; the CDE does not have existing staff qualified to complete them. This bill, unlike the proposed regulations, also requires the CDE to provide and update on its website a list of schools that have implemented a PEA intervention, as well as other specified information. These requirements are likely to result in significant costs to the CDE. The CDE is also required to report additional specified information to the Legislature, Governor, and the SBE when it receives 75 PEA petitions. This workload would be minor and consistent with CDE's related activities.